Midwest Environmental Advocates is a nonprofit law center that combines the power of law with the resolve of communities facing environmental injustice to secure and protect the rights of all people to healthy water, land, and air.

menu
Home » Our Work » Improving livestock manure spreading rules and enforcement

Improving Manure Spreading Rules and Enforcement

— Advocating for improvements in manure spreading, runoff management and non-point source performance standards in environmental law enforcement in Wisconsin (NR 151).

Latest News

Updated November 2021

Nitrate is Wisconsin's most widespread drinking water contaminant. In response to the problem—which has been growing in both extent and severity—the Department of Natural Resources began to develop new rules in 2019 that would govern the use of manure and commercial fertilizer. They were modeled on similar rules put in place in 15 eastern Wisconsin Counties in 2017.

Despite strong public support for these important new environmental protections, the DNR announced in November 2021 that it would abandon its latest efforts. The news was disappointing, especially for those who live in the Central Sands and other areas of the state where groundwater is particularly vulnerable to nitrate pollution.



From the outset, these new environmental protections faced strong opposition from industrial agriculture groups and their allies in the legislature, elected officials who appear to prioritize industry profits over the health and safety of their constituents.

A Walker-era law championed by many of those same officials created additional obstacles—including arbitrary deadlines and cost limits—that significantly complicated, and ultimately derailed, the process. Under the 2017 law, known as the REINS Act, state agencies are required to conduct an economic-impact analysis before implementing a new rule. The law requires agencies to estimate all financial costs that would be incurred by private industry, and it gives the legislature the ability to stop the process in its tracks if those costs are projected to exceed an arbitrarily-low threshold.

If these new nitrate rules had moved forward, the benefit to human health would have far exceeded the cost of implementation. For instance, Wisconsinites would have saved millions of dollars in direct medical costs for cancer, birth defects and other adverse health outcomes associated with nitrate in drinking water.

While we are disappointed in recent developments, we are more determined than ever to secure justice for rural communities unfairly burdened by nitrate pollution.


Case Summary